The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Antigalaxy → Antimatter (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This redirects takes the place of a valid article, and links to a page containing some, but nonetheless very little information about antigalaxies (galaxies composed primarily of antimatter) (see the end of the(Origin and asymmetry section). The redirect was created with the rationale "Requested article" which is a pretty bad reason to create it in the first place, since it makes it look like the article exists and has been created while it this is not the case. I think it would be better to have a redlink. The article would have a much better chance of being created this way. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubbify or Delete per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per those more knowledgeable than me commenting below. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect for now. This is a subject I used to follow more closely and I'd be happy to be proven wrong but based on what I know, I am skeptical that there is more to say on the topic than what is already laid out in the origin and asymmetry section of the target or the baryon asymmetry article. The antimatter asymmetry problem is important and confusing. The anti-"galaxy" concept, though, is little more than a definition - a galaxy made mostly of antimatter (rare and we don't know why) and not really more encyclopedic than an anti-planet or anti-person. Update the redirect to either directly target the section or the baryon asymmetry article, though. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect. There isn't anything more to say than what's already covered at antimatter and baryon asymmetry: that people have raised the possibility of distant parts of the universe being antimatter-dominated, but nobody's found any evidence of this occurring. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—There is nothing in WP:R#DELETE that seems to justify deleting it, but I have no real preference in the matter. An article on the topic probably wouldn't satisfy WP:GNG.—RJH (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn and tagged with ((R unprintworthy)) Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yul Brynner's shaved head → Yul Brynner (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Joke article with implausible title created by a sockpuppet, Yulbesorry (talk · contribs), probably in response to WP:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber's hair. The article was merged as the result of WP:Articles for deletion/Yul Brynner's shaved head. I attributed Yulbesorry's contribution using this dummy edit. Two participants at the AfD opposed leaving a redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If appropriate, I will notify all participants and the closer of WP:Articles for deletion/Yul Brynner's shaved head. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I see no objections, I will notify those users with ((RFDNote)) modified to add a mention of the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to maintain the history, even though you've attributed some of the content there is still no reason to delete this. Of the minority of the AfD participants who didn't want a redirect, one was the only one recommending a complete deletion (this opinion, although valid, is not relevant now as it does not represent the consensus of the AfD) and the other apparently wanted an invalid "delete and merge". The consensus opinion was for a merge which actually means "merge and redirect". Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Merge and delete is not an outright invalid recommendation. Record authorship and delete history and Move to subpage of talk page are both possible. I think removing the redirect is worth their downsides. Yaksar recommended "Delete or merge" and commented that the redirect should not exist. No user argued for the redirect explicitly, and only the delete supporters even mentioned it. I interpret the merge recommendations as "Keep the content, no strong opinion on the redirect." If I notify the AfD participants, they can clarify for themselves. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because merges leave a redirect behind except in exceptional circumstances, every "merge" !vote is an implicit "merge and redirect" !vote unless the editor specifically comments otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect per the conclusion of the AfD discussion. Thryduulf is correct that "delete and merge" is an opinion incompatible with the attribution requirements of GFDL and must be translated as "merge and redirect". Dummy edits and other work-arounds can restore attribution in a pinch but they are never as good as simply keeping the pagehistory intact. Tag as ((unprintworthy)), though. Rossami (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be satisfied with a no-redirect move to subpage Talk:Yul Brynner/Yul Brynner's shaved head. Since Yul Brynner will probably never be moved, it is unlikely that the pages will be moved apart. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirected. Keeping a redirect with history intact is the usual and proper thing to do following a merge. There is no reason to delete any of the history, and the title is not offensive or obviously implausible. It even contributes usefully to a wikipedia search for "shaved head". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw, Rossami pointed out that ((R unprintworthy)) suppresses the search box autocomplete, which is the last major effect that I wanted. I went ahead and tagged the redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]